The article is parroting criticism from Greenpeace. I couldn't respect less that organisation, whereas organisations I respect like the Adam Smith Institute [which backed Brexit] are a lot more positive.
The article is parroting criticism from Greenpeace. I couldn't respect less that organisation, whereas organisations I respect like the Adam Smith Institute [which backed Brexit] are a lot more positive.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
What are you talking about?
Hope is the denial of reality
Did you read the article you linked to?
He did not read it.
Congratulations America
Usual reminder, if you're going to link to something behind a pay/registration wall, and they've got a deal that lets google provide direct access, PLEASE provide the headline so we can actually use google to find the article.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Good point Fuzzy. The title of the article is "Fox’s trade team revealed to be light on numbers and experience" with a further subtitle of "Delegation at US talks likened to ‘turning up to Wimbledon with a ping pong bat’"
Who was it who made that quote that forms the subtitle? Was it a highly-respectable pro-trade body that wants to make a success of free trade with America? An organisation like the Adam Smith Institute? Or is it an anti-capitalist lobby group that opposes trade in the first place. That is only revealed in the body of the text: "But John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said the newly released documents showed a “staggering” experience gap between the two sides.
“These are some of the most important negotiations Britain has engaged in since the war, but it seems the UK is as prepared as someone turning up for the Wimbledon final wielding a ping-pong bat,” he said."
Googling the link provides the same result as googling the title: https://www.google.com/search?ei=hwf...81.RBSMZ8aCYOg
Also, the paywall provides the title of the article if you insist on googling it that way.
Not that it will matter for much longer. Google is ending it's first click free policy.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It wasn't behind a paywall when I linked to it. I think they ungate stories for the first day or two.
Hope is the denial of reality
The article reports the differences in composition of the two teams wrt experience etc. RB is being thick.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It did not do so for me until I did a lot of fiddling with the url Loki gave, nor did I get a title on the paywall page, just a generic FT "please subscribe"
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No I'm not. The fact there is a difference between the two teams regarding experience etc can be filed under "no shit Sherlock". But if you could only do what you were experienced with rather than anything new then we would still be scavenging roots and berries to eat as cavemen. Experience will come with time.
There's a reason that pro-free trade organisations like the Adam Smith Institute are encouraging us to go out and sign free trade deals (the ASI was pro-Brexit for that reason and one organisation that swung my vote) and weren't the negative Nancy's quoted in the article.
Whereas if you believe that anti-capitalist, protectionist, anti-development, anti-production and just generally anti-trade Greenpeace are interested in what is best for promoting free trade then I have a bridge to sell you.
That's just asinine. Your wishful thinking is irrelevant to the negotiations as they currently stand. Your defense of mediocrity is bizarre--trying new things is good, but for vital missions you don't send a bunch of amateurs keen to learn on the job hoping to gain experience and learning from their mistakes, you send your best, you send people who know what they're doing. What's more, there's no reason why the British team couldn't have included members with more trade-related experience & expertise. The article highlighted potential problems with the British team. You, as always, focused exclusively on the least interesting part of the article, namely the comments from reps of a Greenpeace-affiliated organization whose only role here was to obtain and pass on the documents describing the two teams. This type of reaction seems to have become automatic for you and very similar to the behavior of the incompetent political representatives currently mismanaging your exit from the EU.
You're right, there is a reason: wishful thinking. The ASI's policy positions re. trade have insufficient traction among the British public. They're as palatable to the Brexit supporters among the public as Minford's proposals are, ie. almost not at all.There's a reason that pro-free trade organisations like the Adam Smith Institute are encouraging us to go out and sign free trade deals (the ASI was pro-Brexit for that reason and one organisation that swung my vote) and weren't the negative Nancy's quoted in the article.
Mate, you're sounding more like one of those pro-Trump commenters on Fox news's Facebook page for every day.Whereas if you believe that anti-capitalist, protectionist, anti-development, anti-production and just generally anti-trade Greenpeace are interested in what is best for promoting free trade then I have a bridge to sell you.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
in the future you can reduce a url to its "core" link by deleting everything after and including the first ? you see.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The people who went were not amateurs, just because they've not done this exact job before doesn't mean they aren't experienced civil servants who know what they're doing. Besides these are early preliminary talks.
You can file me as a supporter of those policy positions and like them I'm not a populist. If these policies are the right thing to do then it doesn't matter if they're not the most populist position since we don't have rule by populism. If we can convince Parliament to do the right thing then that is enough and my party has a history of taking less popular decisions that are economically the right thing to do.You're right, there is a reason: wishful thinking. The ASI's policy positions re. trade have insufficient traction among the British public. They're as palatable to the Brexit supporters among the public as Minford's proposals are, ie. almost not at all.
For poking fun at Greenpeace? Nothing's changed there, I haven't respected them ever. Who does?Mate, you're sounding more like one of those pro-Trump commenters on Fox news's Facebook page for every day.
Doesn't bypass the firewall.
You Breximaniac Babies are pathetic really; you talk about free-trade as if it is some magical panacea if only you say the words loud enough often enough.
Free trade is a tug of war over rules between countries that all have a vested interest in their own rules becoming the common or universal rule. Free trade only can exist for real if you mercilessly crush any attemp at exceptionalism. What you Breximaniacs are doing is stating and pursuing a desire for the exact opposite. You want to take back control and that is in complete opposition to free trade.
Let's be clear here; there is nobody who will not be willing to trade with you at all. The UK is a desirable market (still) and there is no reason to assume all trade will come to a complete standstill. What will happen is that once you have 'freed' your trade from EU regulation, your trade with us, and with anybody else will be subject to national rules of your trade partners. The border between you and us, which had virtually no relevance for over 20 years will all of a sudden be a delineation that sets you in a space where our rules as such don't apply. That automatically makes also for a situation that everything you try to sell to us will have to be certified as complying to our rules. Even if nothing else changes, nothing you produce will get the automatic wave through, because without the common market nothing is guaranteed. The problems you will have with us will affect the relations you can build with others, because that is the way international trade deals work; they all interlink. Unlike what you Breximaniac Babies think, less supra-national regulation doesn't create more free trade; it significantly reduces it.
The shocking part about Brexit is that it's driven by some holy believe in a world that has no basis in recorded history. As such talking to you lot as an experience is like talking to a devout believer in a flat earth. You lot are as thick as doors, and no facts will ever be able to penetrate your bubble.
Congratulations America
What utter absolute bovine manure.
Yes when we trade with you it will have to follow your rules (and incidentally when you trade with us it will have to follow ours). Just as when we trade with America it will have to follow America's rules and so on and so forth. With America having a larger GDP than your entire union combined. However while Australia has a free trade deal with America, we don't. That doesn't mean the American Congress and American President have law-writing powers for Australia and nor would I want the American politicians to set our laws any more than yours should.
If we are interested in only sacrificing our democracy in order to have a single universal set of rules would you be content to see President Trump given powers over the entire globe? I would not.
Give me one good reason why we should sacrifice our law making powers to Juncker that would not apply to Trump.
Make up your mind about what you want; free trade or control. You can't have both. For the simple reason that you are too fucking small.
Congratulations America
Both. We're bigger than Australia who have a Free Trade Agreement with the USA. Why is Australia capable of getting a free trade deal but we're not?
Lmao. You should really take a closer look at the AUSFTA and its track record.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...-490bn-poorer/
Sounds... "imaginative"Britain is £490billion poorer than thought and no longer has any reserve of net foreign assets to help protect against any damage to the economy from Brexit.
The revision to the national accounts in the ONS’s so-called Blue Book means that the UK’s net international investment position has collapsed from a surplus of £469bn to a net deficit of £22bn - equivalent to a quarter of GDP.
The revised figures show the country owns far fewer international assets and owes far more to foreign investors than previously thought.
“Half a trillion pounds has gone missing,” said Mark Capleton, the UK rates strategist at Bank of America.
The effective write down in the value of “UK plc” could make it harder to defend sterling and the British debt markets against a run on the pound after Britain leaves the European Union.
[...]
The ONS overestimated how many financial assets Britons own overseas and foreign investment in the UK.
Company profits were lower than forecast, and a large amount of supposed assets held by firms were in fact disguised forms of lending to UK households.
The revision is disturbing given that foreign direct investment into Britain has collapsed, plummeting from a net £120bn in the first half of last year to a net outflow of £25bn this year.
The apparent resilience of these flows shortly after the Brexit referendum was an illusion, since the funds had already been committed earlier.
The Bank of New York Mellon, the world’s biggest custodian of assets, said there had been a marked deterioration over recent weeks in purchases of sterling stocks and bonds by ‘real money’ players such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds.
Simon Derrick, the bank’s currency strategist, said: “The outflows from the UK began in mid-August. The big buyers are disappearing.”
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
OK lets do that.
Today's statistics:
Aus GDP/capita $49,972
UK GDP/capita $39,899
Aussies are 25% richer than Brits.
For comparison when I moved to Australia in 1992, Australia was a poorer country.
UK $20,487 in 1992
Aus $18,616 in 1992
Brits were 10% richer than Aussies then.
In-between those dates the EEC transformed into the sclerotic EU and the AUSFTA agreement was signed. The UK has stuttered dismally and Australia has leapfrogged well ahead of us.
We can even use the baseline as 2004 when AUSFTA was signed (it came into effect on 1/1/05).
UK $39,824.74
Aus $30,472.38
Since then the UK hasn't grown at all and Australia has grown by nearly two-thirds. Incredible performance, lets have some of that please.
Oh and in case you think that's just the UK performing badly rather than Australia performing well you can perform the same exercise with any western European nation. In 1992 Germany, France etc were all much richer than Australia per capita. Now the inverse is true. Australia is succeeding where sclerotic Europe is failing but don't let facts get in the way of your excuses for Europe's mendacious failure.
In 1992 German GDP per capita was 50% more than Australia's ... in 2017 Aussie GDP per capita is 20% more than Germany's! Europe is failing but we can all learn something from our Antipodean cousins.
And how will learning from them put their mineral resources in your underground Aynstayn?
Congratulations America
That is one of the dumbest analyses I've seen on this board. 90% of that increase in GDP can be attributed to Steve Irwin's death in 2006. The UK's GDP per capita plunged relative to Australia's during the financial crisis. Australia, meanwhile, has substantially more valuable natural resources than the UK does. The two economies are not very similar. The AUSFTA itself is an extremely lopsided deal strongly in favour of the US. Its impact on trade is believed to be either negligible or slightly negative:
https://crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/ajrc...015/201501.pdf
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...0302-pg6p.html
http://insidestory.org.au/lessons-fr...ade-agreement/
https://theconversation.com/how-the-...lias-pbs-32573
http://www.iit.adelaide.edu.au/resea..._ful_FINAL.pdf
The only lesson relevant to the UK that you can learn from the AUSFTA is this: the US will wring significant concessions from you and make very few significant concessions of their own in return.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hey Randy, just for the heck of it; how did it feel to see your PM in the role of an actual supplicant?
For me it was kinda fun to see that there were actual British officials who thought that we should still care that a British PM has trouble selling a deal with the EU back home and thus should water down our principles so she could claim some victory.
Congratulations America
I didn't see that.
You decided to not watch the news at all because you can't cope with how bad Brexit actually is for your country and its status in the world?
Congratulations America
No.
Well, according to Mark Rutte (who was there when Theresa May held her speech at the Council) she asked for a 'deal she could defend back home'. When telling that he smirked and said 'Isn't that a nice, and wouldn't we all always like deals we can defend back home?'
You must also be proud that the PM of Malta evaluated the speech as 'the best one so far but not changing anything'.
Congratulations America
I don't see how that makes her a supplicant. Of course everyone wants a deal they can defend at home, that is the whole point. As members Cameron, Blair and to an extent Major all failed to get one which is why we're leaving.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote